Senior v. Whitfield CA6

Filed 3/7/25 Senior v. Whitfield CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CHRISTINA SENIOR, H051763 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 17DV000096)

v.

MICHAEL WHITFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Michael Whitfield (Whitfield), representing himself, appeals from an order denying his request to vacate a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) entered against him in 2017. Respondent Christina Senior (Senior) has not filed a response. Because Whitfield has provided neither an adequate opening brief nor an adequate record on appeal to enable meaningful appellate review, we affirm. Based on the sparse record on appeal,2 it appears that, in February 2017, Senior requested and obtained a temporary DVRO against Whitfield in this case. In August 2017, the trial court issued a DVRO after hearing against Whitfield (2017 DVRO). The

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of 1

Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852-855.) 2 The record contains only the following from the hearing at issue: the minute order, Whitfield’s proposed settled statement, the court’s settled statement, and the court’s register of actions for the underlying case.

trial court’s register of actions indicates that, between 2017 and 2019, the court held several hearings related to requests for orders filed by Whitfield including a request to “set aside restraining order.” Thereafter, this case was dormant until 2023, when Whitfield filed a request for order (RFO) to “vacate/expunge 2017 DVRO due to res judicata.” The trial court heard the RFO in December 2023, denied Whitfield’s request, and Whitfield timely appealed. There was no court reporter present at the December 2023 hearing. Whitfield filed a proposed settled statement which was not adopted by the trial court. The trial court filed a modified settled statement which stated in part: “Argument was made by both sides. No exhibits were presented. [¶] The Court denied the motion, finding [Appellant] did not present legal authority for his request, the request was untimely, and the issue was moot, as the DVRO had expired in 2020. [¶] Further, the Court denied [Appellant’s] 10/25/17 [sic] and 10/25/17 Requests for Orders to set aside the 8/2/17 DVRO on 11/7/17.” Whitfield contends the trial court should have vacated the 2017 DVRO as a void judgment because California had no personal jurisdiction over him as a Nevada resident, the Nevada court had issued a final judgment prior to the 2017 DVRO and therefore had exclusive jurisdiction, and the order was obtained by Senior and her attorney through fraudulent means. Whitfield further contends there was no substantial evidence to support the findings, Senior was never afraid of him, and Senior used the DVRO as leverage to obtain a more favorable custody agreement and result in the Nevada proceedings. Whitfield asserts that he was a law enforcement officer and, because of the 2017 DVRO, he lost his rights to possess firearms, effectively ending his career. We are guided by well-established principles of appellate review. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, [based on] the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that